card_configure

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no readOnly or destructive annotations, and the only behavioral note is '原文保持原位' (original text stays in place). The description does not disclose whether existing configuration is overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects may occur, which is insufficient for a mutating configuration tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense sentence with no filler. It packs in the action, the state values, the data source, and a key behavioral guarantee, which makes it highly efficient and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no schema parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not explain scope, the shape of baseline, preconditions, or effects beyond preserving the original text. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but not the need for parameter and mutation context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates partially by enumerating the state values and referencing card_describe's configBaseline for the baseline parameter. It leaves id and scope unexplained, though those are relatively self-evident or have defaults; overall it is adequate but not complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a clear action — setting a card's state to enabled, disabled, or inherit — which is a specific verb plus resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like card_set_relation or card_set_shared, but the state-configuration focus is clear enough to separate it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies an ordering dependency by instructing the agent to use card_describe's configBaseline, which gives useful context for when to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the usage guidance mostly inferred rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.